Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 176

Wed, 26 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: Gezeiros after Sanhedrin (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Gezeiros after Sanhedrin (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Mesorah (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Gezeiros after Sanhedrin (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: [Areivim] kashrut (Celejar)
• 6. Rambam (Eli Turkel)
• 7. lo plug (Eli Turkel)
• 8. gezerot of Sanhedrin (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Rachel and Leah (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: Being Friendly (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Rambam (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: shechiyanu (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Gezeiros after Sanhedrin (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Gezeiros after Sanhedrin (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: lo plug (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 16. Priorities in hatzalah (Rich, Joel)
• 17. Re: hashgachot (Ben Waxman)

Micha Berger wrote:

> But before that, RYBZ only allowed shofar blowing before a beis din. If
> Rava made a second taqanah, it was that he found RYBZ's position to
> be too loose, and there was still too much of a risk of hotza'ah.
> Alternatively, he could have been pasqening that without a Sanhedrin
> in the lishqas hagazis, none of the batei din qualified for RYBZ's
> permission. (Much like their loss of authority WRT dinei nefashos.)

That can't be so, because RYBZ's beis din was in Yavneh.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha Berger wrote:

> The last Sanhedrin was either that of R' Hillel II, in something like
> 358 CE (if we take the traditional explanation for his standardizing
> the calendar), or R' Gamliel IV who was executed in 425 CE. With his
> execution, the Romans (under Theodosius II, a Nestorian Christian)
> also banned the institution.

There's no contradiction.  Hillel II standardised the calendar because
he could see how the political winds were blowing, and that there would
soon come a time when kiddush hachodesh would be impossible.  The fact
that the final blow didn't come for another 67 years shouldn't pose any
problem at all.  It's not as if Hillel II was a navi; he was merely a
chacham haro'eh et hanolad.


> Rava lived 270-350 CE, and could very well have submitted a proposal to
> the Sanhedrin. His friend R' Zeira made aliyah, so we know travel from
> Bavel to Maaravah was done. Rava also had a say in picking the next nasi
> (along with R' Zeira and Rabah bar Masnah) after R' Yoseif (Horiyos 14b),
> indicating that he did have some kind of remote role in the running of
> the Sanhedrin.

R Yosef was not nasi of the Sanhedrin!  He was RY of Pumbedisa, like
Rabbah before him.   It's also not clear from that gemara at the end
of Horiyos (14a, BTW; there is no 14b) that they were picking a
successor for R Yosef; from the text itself it sounds more like they
were picking a head for their little chaburah.  It's only from the
context of what came before, and from the fact that we know (at least
I *think* we know) Abaye did succeed R Yosef as RY, that we can infer
that this is what that gemara is talking about.


> I understand legislation -- gezeiros and dinim derabbanan -- to be solely
> the purview of a Beis Din haGadol. I would point to Hil' Mamrim pereq 2,
> but we don't follow that WRT considering a pesaq or minhag binding. We
> seem to follow anything that was nispasheit, even if it didn't pass
> through a Sanhedrin. Therefore, how can I use it to buttress my point
> WRT new gezeiros and dinim?

AIUI, the BD Hagadol's decrees are binding on everybody, whether they
like it or not.  Other BD's decrees are only binding on those who
accept their authority.


> But my understanding was that the need for a Beis Din haGadol is why
> Rabbeinu Gershom's laws needed to be snuck in as charamim against
> someone who did X, Y or Z, rather than direct issurim.

I don't see why that should be.  AIUI the charamos were to strengthen
them beyond mere decrees, which people could ignore without penalty.
But he could have made stam decrees, which would be binding on the
same people on whom the charamot were binding, i.e. those who accepted
his authority.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha Berger wrote:

> I mention all this because in Bavli accent of the 20th cent, the bege"d
> kefe"t refuyot are aspirated plosives. IOW, sound of the letter "bhet"
> is like that of a "bet" but breathier. There is reason to believe this
> is ancient, like the gemara's caution against stringing together "eisev
> besadekha", which is a real issue with "eisebh besedekha", but not with a
> "vet".
> 
> Which means that we need to understand R' Acha bar Yaaqov. It seems he
> himself -- like nearly all of us (any Teimanim in the chevrah?) -- spoke
> a Hebrew in which there was no dalet that can be stretched out. It would
> therefore be easily arguable that he was saying that the dalet of echadh
> was an exception even for those of us who do not normally use that sound.

It's not just temanim who did/do a dalet refuyah like the consonant at
the end of "breathe".  R Yehuda Halevi compared a bee's buzzing to the
sound of someone lengthening "echadh" in Shema.  So either this was the
common custom in Spain of his time, or else it was known and taught as
the meaning of "lengthening the dhaleth", but not actually practised. 


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:18:38PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: That can't be so, because RYBZ's beis din was in Yavneh.

Well, it was in both. 40 of his 60 years were before the churban, and
we know from how he was snuck out that by the time of the churban, he
was famous enough for centurians to respect his sanctity. It's quite
possible that the taqanah of shofar was before "tein li Yavneh".

My problem is that if we don't say something like that, how do we justify
the amoraim revisiting the gezeirah? It was simply a convenient excuse
-- one was dealing with pre-churban realities, the other not. However,
any other reason for Rabba broadening the ban on shofar on Shabbos isn't
likely to change the basic point.

To wit:
Do we have reason to believe that Rabba's gezeirah was not made by a
Sanhedrin?

As for Hillel and the end of the Sanhedrin... the end of the Sanhedrin
is often dated to Hillel because of the belief that the calendar was
among the last acts of the Sanhedrin. Yes, it's possible that it was a
false alarm, or the beginning of a decades-long end, but that's not how
Doros haRishonim (eg) puts it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:48:21 +0300
Mike Miller <arei...@mikeage.net> wrote [on Areivim, cited with
permission]:

...

> Perhaps a din of hefsed of some sorts, but it seems strange in the
> context of a hechsher; if it's not [as] good, can customers be meikil
> because of a hefsed of the proprietor?

A famous dispute between Rav Akiva Eger and Hasam Sofer - see Pis'hei
Teshuvah YD 31:2.

Yitzhak
-- 
Bein Din Le'din - http://bdld.info - *** Note change of address ***
http://bdld.info/2009/07/19/by-any-other-url/
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

<<Now obviously Ri Migash disregarded his own advice! One Hilluq is
obvious: to pasqen from Shas one needs to master all of Shas. But most
Rabbsi who lack such mastery ought to rely upon Gaonic secondary sources.

This hilluq explains the above Rambam! When young he relied upon
secondary sources, as he himself became a master, he went directly to
the original sources.>>

This article claims that when ambam wrote Perish Hamishnayot he held like
the Ri Migash even though he had already mastered Shas.
Later in life he became convinced that the Geonim had many mistakes and
so held that one cannot rely on them.
His Yad Hazakah is meant to be a substitute for the psakim of the Geonim

The article is in Volume 8 of Hakirah by Asher Buchman

A sample quote:
" Rambam (Iggerot HaRambam  Shilat ed p 647 and 305)
blames himself for having relied on the opinions of earlier geonim without
having analyzed the issue fully when he wroter the perush hamishnayot.
in his youth he was
at least partially guilty of what is apparently the universal fault of others -
not doing the full analysis of primary sources that the chachmei
hatalmud expected of us"

Buchman theorizes that the gadol that Rambam felt he was misled by was
--- the Rif !!
While in the perush hamishnayot he says he disagreed in less than 10 places in
Yad Chazakah he disagrees in many more places. He continually revised
Perush Hamishnayot
throughout his lifetime (not clear what version our printed version is
based) and probably never reached a final version before his death

-- 
Eli Turkel

<<IIRC Rabbah made no such gzeira!

In Megillah the Gmara deduced there is no Megillah on Shabbas and uses
Rabba's S'vara to explain it

I need to review inside but I suspect that is true of Shofar and Lulav.
They were all axiomaticcally refrained from on Shabbas already. Then.
Rabbah only provided the WHY for a pre-existing WHAT. I suspect that
perhaps Rabbah's reason is not THE definitive reason.

FWIW The Y-lmi gives the passuq "zichron tru'ah" to explain no Shofar
on Shabbos - mashma d'oraisso or at least an asmachta.>>

I already had quoted the Yerushalmi. The general consensus is that the
Bavli disagrees with the Yerushalmi
(discussed by RYBS in Noraot HaRav vol 1)
The Yerushalmi obviously does not know of the gezerah of Rav.
It says megilla is not read on shabbat because ketivin are not read on
shabbat. The Yerushalmi does not discuss lulav on shabbat.

Granted that Rabbah did not start the gezerah which goes back to
 Yochanan ben Zakkai. However, the commentaries all assume his reason.
Didnt see anyone suggesting that it wasnt THE definitive reason (again according
to the Bavli)

-- 
Eli Turkel

<<(I think you mean Rava, as it's called gezeira deRava.) >>

The gemara in RH 29 on the Mishna that in the days of the
Temple when RH fell on shabbat the shofar was blown only
in the Temple (or all Jerusalem)

The first opinion in the gemara is that this is a Torah law (like
the Yerushalmi I quote). Rava disagrees and says it cant be a Torah
law. Rather he explains it based on the principle of Rabbah that
they were afraid that people would take the shofar to public areas
to learn how to blow it. The gemara then extends the explanation
to megilla and lulav.

As previously explained the Yerushalmi accepts that it is a Torah prohibition,
explains that megilla is not read on shabbat because it is ketuvin and doesnt
discuss lulav.

The simple pshat in the gemara is that indeed this was a gezerah of the
Sanhedrin in Temple days and ava is only explaining it based on the
reasoning of Rabbah.

As to whether one needs a sanhedrin for gezerot that is very controversial
and goes back to the controversy on why halachot in the Gemara and Mishna
are binding. Rambam seems to explain that simply it was accepted by
all of Israel.
Hence gezerot after that time are less binding though many gezerot of the
geonim were accepted. Rabbenu Gershon who lived later had less power.
As I point out in an article of mine the cherem of Rabbenu Gershon is in
fact not his private psak but rather by the central bet din of the German
community most probably at some community meeting. Similar remarks apply
to Cherem's of Rabbenu Tam. Hence, these do not affect sefardim who
were no part of that community

We have many gezerot in the Mishna based on some Tanna's opinion.
There is no indication that each case was voted by the Sanhedrin of its time.

BTW I am not completely convinced of the difference between a prohibition and
a cherem. Certainly the cherem is binding whether one wants to or not and
would be enforced by a bet din.


Eli Turkel

BTW, who said that Leah wasn't Yaaqov's true wife? Reflect on how Yaaqov's
life actually went. Racheil died young. For the vast majority of his life,
it was him, Leah, and the shefachos.>.

The gemara already says that the descendants of Leah admitted that Rachel was
the main wife and mention her first


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:36am -0400, Aryeh Herzig wrote to Areivim:
: The Gemara Berachot 43[b]:
: Six things are a "Gnai" ...for a Talmid Chacham....
: 
: (among them) to converse with a woman in the Shuk...

And there's it's "yesapeir im ishah", also not the more straightforward
"yedabeir".

I think the awkward turn of phrase really is to make sure not to include
nidon didan, just saying "Hello". It's like generalizing "shelo yistakeil
adam be'ishah na'ah, ve'afilu penuyah" into "lir'os".

EhE 21:6 is most instructive: Ein sho'alim beshalom ishah kelal, afily
A"Y shaliach... (then the SA added afilu AY baalah, but the nosei keilim
argue about that). Seems to be open-and-shut that my earlier conjecture
about "sichah" not including saying "hello" was wrong.

The Pischei Teshuvah asks on this from Elishah's conversation with the
Shunamit. The Avnei Mishpat answers that this is because her arrival
was at an atypical time, and Elisha's asking what was wrong is not
chibah-enducing.

The Ritva (Qiddushin 70b) says the issur is only on someone who can't
withstand his yeitzer. Similarly the AhS (se'if 8) holds that it's mutar
if the people *and the language* isn't risking chibah.

The Maharam Shik is meiqil based on Tosafos (Qiddush 81a), which
explicitly says that someone whose thoughts are pure and lesheim shamayim
can ask shalom.

The TE 5:2 says that since such conversation is normal today, there is
no cheshash of chibah.

But to reiterate the AhS, since that's what my rebbe, RDL, defined as
/the/ guide for normative halakhah -- in Litta the norm (se'if 9) was to
greet one's hostess, and they held there was (usually) no issur. "Aval,
lomar lah 'tzafra tava' ukeh"g nir'eh de'ein issur." (se'if 8)

It's for this reason I guessed that Beruriah was accusing R' Yosi
haGelili, or perhaps just taunting him, of having a crush on her.
One can't say the extra words of "be'eizeh derekh neileikh leLud"
were derekh chibah, and yet the AhS et al have no problem being
meiqilim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

RET:
> This article claims that when ambam wrote Perish Hamishnayot he held like
> he Ri Migash even though he had already mastered Shas.

The Rambam earlier took the Ri Migash as literal! Had he been exposed
to R Kanarfogel (RDEK) :-) he might have understood the caveats or
the contexts of the Ri Migash differently - because Ri Migash did NOT
literally state this hilluq - rather we KNOW it from other things he said!


WADR, this shows IMHO that Rambam himself evolved and matured and realized
LATER ON not to take this too literally!

RDEK gives 2 teirutzim to the inconsistency between Ri Migash's stated
position And his own behavior:

1 mastery of Shas
2 Ri Migash et al. Never meant programmtic statements to be taken
literally 100% of the time. - aiui it is a default - a klal - not a hard
and fast rule

Unfortunately literalists, textualists, and fundamentalists
frequently. misconstrue the Rambam and Ashkenaz because they fail to
"get" how programmatic meta-rules were meant to be implemented. IOW
They lost the TSBP on HOW to apply the rules and instead of using them
judiciously they apply them slavishly!

That's why bar-ilan CD searches are dangerous in the hands of half-baked
students who cannot fathom how to wade into these areas!

For a mashal see haqdama to new edition SA Harav where the Alter Rebbe
apparently outlived his earlier "slavish" devotion to Magein Avraham.

Bottom Line:
Mature Rabbis do not pasqen "knee-jerk" style. They use discernment.
Unfortunately "novices" sometimes lack the meta-rules or the subtleties
to fathom what's REALLY going on.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Eli Turkel wrote:
> Eli Turkel wrote:

>>> Just had this shabbat a watermelon that was orange inside instead of red.
>>> The guy who brought to kiddush thought we would make a shehechiyanu
>>> but we decided that the beracha applies to fruits and not vegetables.

>> Not so.  It applies to any fruit or vegetable which is seasonal.
>> It would apply even to potatoes, if you could tell that they were
>> from the new season, and not stored from last year.

> Darchai Moshe bringing Maharil disagrees with you
> Darche Moshe  on Tur 225/2

1) That's Mahari Weil, not Maharil
2) On the contrary, he says exactly what I did.  The reason we don't
say shehecheyanu on potatoes is not that they're vegetables but that
they;re stored all year; if they weren't, we would.   As the article
you linked to says, it's an explicit gemara that we do say it on
pumpkins, since they are only available in their season.



-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                    - Margaret Thatcher

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:18:38PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : That can't be so, because RYBZ's beis din was in Yavneh.
> 
> Well, it was in both. 40 of his 60 years were before the churban

What 60 years?  He was only a leader for 40 years.  And he wasn't
the nasi before the churban -- R Gamliel was.  In any case, even
if he had been nasi for 40 years before the churban, that would
still not have been in the LhG. 


> It's quite
> possible that the taqanah of shofar was before "tein li Yavneh".

No, it isn't.  This gezera was explicitly after the churban.


> Do we have reason to believe that Rabba's gezeirah was not made by a
> Sanhedrin?

Only that Rabba was not on the Sanhedrin, and if it had been it
would surely be quoted in their name.


> As for Hillel and the end of the Sanhedrin... the end of the Sanhedrin
> is often dated to Hillel because of the belief that the calendar was
> among the last acts of the Sanhedrin.

It is the last act that we know of.


> Yes, it's possible that it was a
> false alarm, or the beginning of a decades-long end, but that's not
> how Doros haRishonim (eg) puts it.

Did he have any reason to know the actual history?  Or is he deducing
it from the fact of the calendar being implemented?


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha Berger wrote:

> Which makes my answer even easier. Rather than prove from his role in
> selecting R' Yoseif' replacement that Rava was in communication with the
> Sanhedrin, we are dealing with Rabba, who was R' Yoseif's predecessor
> as nasi.

Neither Rabba nor R Yosef were ever nasi, or ever sat on the Sanhedrin.
They were RY of Pumbedisa.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Eli Turkel:
> It says megilla is not read on shabbat because ketivin are not read on
> shabbat.

WADR I claim that this is a misleading statement

The gzeira is already deduced from the MISHNA itself because - when
analyzed - in no scenario is Megillah EVER read on Shabbos!

And Given that there is no name in the Mishnah attached to these g'zeiros,
they were either

1 old enough to predate hurban
OR
2 were uncontested - absent any tannaic material otherwise.


As such the g'zeira is axiomatic - it is only the rationale that is
being given by the Gmara!

Tangent:
Same for not dancing-clapping-slapping on YT. The mishnah contains the
issur, the Gmara offers tiqqun maneh as the rationale for that g'zeira.

Thus the Gmara is NOT issuing g'zeiros - rather amoraim are offering the
rationales and/or the parameters. This is highly analogous to Tosafos
expounding on Shas itself!

There are named g'zeiros!

Illustration:
The issue of issur Hametz before Hatzos erev Pesach is debated by R Meir
(1 hour) and R. Yehuda (2 hours for eating)

It seems likely - and is ee it this way - that 1 hour was an widely
accepted [axiomatic] g'zeira and only the 2nd hour was disputed and was
construed as a separate G'zeira by the Tanna R. Yehuda "atu yom Ham'unan"
As I have mentioned in the past - the ta'am for this 2nd hour is bateil
beyameinu - unless one uses a sundial for telling time.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

R'SZA in Minchat shlomo tanina2-3 86 discusses triage and refers to the
priorities in Horiyot but then says "ach choshvani shebizmaneinu kasheh
meod lhitnaheg lfi zeh"

Any ideas on what this means (e.g. we should do it but can't, or noshtaneh hateva....)

KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090825/712d7d14/attachment-0001.htm>

I am sending this to Avodah.

The Rema in YD 119:7 states explicitly that one can eat in someone else's
home even if the latter does not keep the same piskei halakha or minhagim.
The Rema's phrasing is that "vadai lo ye'ehkhiluhu devar sh'hu noheg bo
issur". The Shakh there brings some details to this basic rule (such as when
can the host use his keilim, when can the guest be meiqil and eat the food
(or not)), but he agrees with the bottom line. The Khochmot Adam doesn't
bring the Shakh's rules, he simply states that it is muttar to eat at other
people's homes, even if they don't keep all of your khumrot.

The Kaf HaKhayim brings these opinions and discusses another case, that
where the host thinks that the guest's minhagim are minhag ta'ot. Can the
host be relied upon in this case. He brings (I believe) the Trumat HaDeshen
who says no, but in the end the KhK states the host can be relied upon.

In short I didn't see anyone who indicated that the best thing to do is not
to eat at this person's home. The host's piskei kahakha are not the issue.
Once the guest says "I only eat X, Y, Z; can you do that?" and the host says
"Yes I can", that should be it. OK if there is a particular person whom
someone knows to be careless or unreliable, I understand. But everyone?

So when there is an explicit Rema that the host will not transgress "lifnei
iveir" (that is the issue) and someone says that he is going to be poreish
above and beyond what anyone calls for, it should raise a flag. I am not
stating that it is forbidden to act in this way. However, IMO, someone who
does do this has to be 1000% sure that his kavana is l'shem shamayim. There
is no makhloqet here. So why is some being poreish in this manner?

Ben

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Miller" <arei...@mikeage.net>
>
> I don't see your problem here. RYL is not impinging anyone's
> reliability but rather stating that the average person's
> _piskei_halacha_ are not in accordance with his. What's wrong with
> that?
>
> He completely trusts his neighbor to be honest, to be following his
> [the neighbor's] Rav, etc... but he says that that's the very reason
> he doesn't rely on him.



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 176
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."